We're not left in the dark about such things. The Bible gives us an answer.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools ... and exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom 1:22,25)There is a term for it. Anthropocentrism. All things begin with Man. All things are about Man. Man is the end of all things. If this is true, then there is nothing at all wrong with those people. They're just "doin' what comes natur'ly". They're certainly doing what comes biblically. Having set aside the Creator as the center of all things, we now serve ourselves, the creature.
But, look, pointing fingers at "them" isn't of any use. And we Christians know better, right? We're not centered on Man; we're centered on Christ! Or ... are we?
I don't know why, but I'm always surprised when I find God-fearing Christians operating from an anthropocentric theology. They define God from a starting point of Man and structure biblical doctrines from the starting point of Man's beliefs. They speak of Christ, but formulate their practices around self -- self-satisfaction, self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement, and so on. God is not who God says He is; He is what they think He is even if it violates what He says. First and foremost, God cannot be anything toward Man that they would deem negative toward Man. Love, grace, yes, indeed! Wrath or justice? Man forbid! You see, God owes us. It is not uncommon to hear well-meaning Christians speaking of God's need for us.
Of course, in our rush to put God at the center, we need to be careful not to remove Man. God didn't make us for no reason; He made us for a good purpose. After all, we just celebrated the Incarnation when God sent His only begotten Son on our behalf. Jesus came to give us abundant life (John 10:10). So we're not irrelevant. But we aren't the primary issue.
Pointing fingers at "them", whether it is "those unbelievers" or "those believers", doesn't much help. We need to figure out what's wrong with ourselves. And that is our own tendency toward serving the creature rather than the Creator. It is the basis for the sin that dwells within us. It is the self that needs to be executed rather than reformed. And while we cannot do that in others, we can certainly seek to do so in ourselves. Or, I can on my own behalf by the work of the Spirit.
17 comments:
Is there a difference between "making God the Center" and "acknowledging that God is Center"
I know that this may sound like word games,but i believe there are implications to both views.
the first statement implies that we need to do something, or God will not be center of our lives. this is often the case when reading tracks concerning the four spiritual laws. it implies a conformity; that we should be making every effort to achieve, or else God will not be the center of our lives.
the second statement is independent of our perspective or our standing. God IS Center, God is lord, God is the creator of all things whether we acknowledge it or not. i believe this statement calls for humility and bended knee.
is this distinction noteworthy or is it just a play on words?
I would qualify "making God the center" with "in my life". That is, acknowledging that He is the center and seeing life through that lens. To realize God as center, using "realize" in the sense of "to make real to me that which is already true."
And, after having established the fact that Dan Trabue is operating from a different basis than I am and, therefore, leaves us without basis for discussion, he still feels the need to comment. Another thing I don't understand.
I maybe i am making a distinction with out a big difference.
i remember a time when Sherlock Holmes and i were camping. while in our separate sleeping bags, Sherlock said " Watson look up and tell me what do you see?" well, i see the big dipper, the constellation of Orion. very observant of you, but have you noticed that our tent is missing? sometimes i try too hard.
even Sherlock Holmes had an arch nemesis the nefarious Doctor Moriority i presume...
I don't think it's a distinction without a difference. I think you're right. 1) God is the center. 2) I need to recognize that in my own life. (If I don't, I'm acting irrationally.)
And I think it's so cool that you went camping with Mr. Holmes.
Dan Trabue: "When one enters into a discussion, it is important to have the same presuppositions or no presuppositions in place, from a rational point of view."
Dan Trabue: "I'm saying we have to use commonly agreed upon premises to make reasonable progress."
i am sorry but both premises are incorrect. we do not need the same presuppositions to make a rational point, nor do we need to have an agree upon premise to make a reasonable progress.
these are both presupposition assumptions in themselves, that are being presented as fact. this is double talk at its best. having a rational point of view, or to make progress requires an exchange if ideas toward DISCOVERY. albeit this is a legal term, but it does suffice. the point of the argument is to discover the truth. presupposition is a hindrance to discovery, because it creates bias.
consider the many walks of life that people come from that hear the Gospel and are saved.
are we to claim that all these people must have that same presupposition in order to learn the truth? No. only after the fact of believing, do the share what is NOT a presupposition, but common knowledge of the facts of the truth. if have to spell presupposition one more time i am gonna smack my head against the wall. the simple solution set is that Dan disagrees with Stan. end of story. they don't need common Ground, they need common knowledge.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment, Mr. Watson, but I said, "And, after having established the fact that Dan Trabue is operating from a different basis than I am and, therefore, leaves us without basis for discussion ..." and Mr. Trabue responded with "It's not a fact." So I simply listed his own claims from his own comments regarding the fact that he comes from a different basis and argues that conversation from differing bases will not produce reasonable progress.
i can see that you are simply countering by using his own arguments against Him. i just wanted to point out that his assumptions were false. usually when we communicate we don't have to add such superfluous qualifiers, you simply state your case, then we agree or disagree. i can see that your dealing with someone who has mastered the art of loquacious flatulence to impress the minds of the uninitiated. but that will not work here because i took my brain out of the jar and am warming it up by the fire. If we are on the path to sincerely know the truth, then we will make every effort to know it sincerely. opps i have to go now, my brain is rolling across the floor trying to get away...
i also would like to point out that discovery in your case is different from say discovery in science or astronomy or any other discipline. for example all the other arts start from a position of ignorance about the conclusion of a given question. so they start with a presupposition (there's that word again ) but they know that the presub. is just a theory until all the facts are made available. then they will modify their presub to align with the truth. in your case you are going in the opposite direction, your starting with the truth then asking the question. do you understand this? or do you believe this. this is another reason that the concept of common presub. makes no sense in this forum. this is about what God has already said, not what we presuppose he said. ok i am really going now ...
Catch that warm brain.
One problem is that using Dan'so words against him is usually not very fruitful. I've yet to see him acknowledge that his words actually have a understandable consistent meaning. He frequently argues that he didn't say things of his that I've quoted, or that the quote actually means something different from what the words used suggest.
Dan has no opportunity to deny the statement. He made it. I copied it from where he made it and there it lies. He can deny it all he wants, but it's there. I suppose he'll complain that I'm misrepresenting him. I don't know ... slander or some such. Quoting someone can do that, you know.
There are certainly times that differing presuppositions can have no meaningful discussion. There is a God/there is no God, the Bible is the sole source of faith and practice/there are many sources for faith and practice, Jesus is God incarnate/Jesus was a good man, God created the heavens and the earth/there is no creator. All those opposing presuppositions will not be able to have a meaningful discussion about anything related to those topics (to name a few).
In every case, in order for meaningful conversation to take place, we have to be operating from the same basic starting point, some common premise(s). To prove by Scripture that Jesus is God to someone who denies the existence of God or the truth of Scripture is pointless. To demonstrate that you can't put God in a test tube, so He must not exist to a believer in God is ridiculous. Some commonality is required in order for dialog to be effective ... as demonstrated by the ongoing, continuous problem of words where one person uses "A" and another uses "A" and both mean something different by it. No common use, no conversation.
I think, then, that Bob is wrong. A common premise, regardless of the arena of the conversation, is essential. In science, for instance, you must agree on basic rules of logic and testing procedures or it's pointless. There must be commonality somewhere on which to base a dialog.
Hey i live in america and in america i have the right to be stupid, and sometimes i choose to exercise that right, so there... lets see common premise and common presupposition. are they the same thing? anyway i cant take responsibility for what my brain does when it's rolling across the floor. just when i thought i was making sense, i get tripped up buy Stan's irrefutable logic. i hate it when your right.. foiled again.. but ill be back , now where did that brain go...
Post a Comment